tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 26 07:00:52 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: -taHbe' v -be'taH

Okay, I went back for a second look, myself:

On Sat, 25 Apr 1998 21:32:17 -0700 (PDT) Alan Anderson 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> SuStel jang charghwI':
> >> Since something like {-Qo'} must, by necessity, negate the whole word, it is
> >> not inconceivable that {-be'} could do that too.
> >
> >Of course, the only way to make that assumption is to ignore
> >everything Okrand says about {-be'} modifying the preceding
> >syllable, right there in TKD...
> 
> TKD Section 4.3. "Rovers" (page 46):
> 
>   {-be'} "not"
>   This is the general suffix of negation, translated as English
>   /not/.  It follows the concept being negated.
> 
> It doesn't say "syllable".  It doesn't say "verb or suffix".  It says
> "concept".  The examples given on that page all apply it to a single
> morpheme, but other examples make sense to me if the idea of "concept"
> is treated a little less restrictively.  {batlh bIHeghbe} "You will not
> die with honor" is a very powerful example; the "not" is being applied
> to more than a single word.

It also says:

"Their position is determined by the meaning intended." I am 
less willing than you are to brush aside this statement and say, 
"The examples given on that page all apply it to a single 
morpheme, but..." But nothing. It is right there in the example 
with {-be'} moved around in the word {choHoHvIp}. When he 
explains {choHoHvIpbe'} Okrand says, "In the second word, the 
negated notion is /afraid/ (that is, /not afraid/), and {-be'} 
follows {-vIp}."

He does not say, *In the second word, the negated notion is 
/you are afraid to kill me/*. He says, /afraid/. This is NOT one 
of the more vague areas of explanation Okrand has given us.
 
> How about {tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhlaHbe'}?  It sure looks to me like that's
> a simple negation of the entire phrase {tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhlaH}.

It is, for you, a happy accident that negating the {-laH} yields 
exactly the same meaning as negating the entire statement. 
Meanwhile, that does nothing to prove your point.

I deeply respect you and your skills with this langauge, but 
this particular whim is something I feel a strong need to 
respond to and extinguish if at all possible. If we begin to 
question the basic idea that {-be'} negates everything that 
preceeds it instead of the single affix or root that it follows, 
then we lose the ability to fine-tune our meaning by focusing 
the negation on this single concept. We then also rather 
massively reinterpret one of the most clearly described and 
illustrated grammatical concepts in TKD with, I believe, too 
little justification from other Okrandian sources.

I honestly believe we lose far more than we gain by embracing 
this very new reinterpretation of one of the oldest elements of 
Klingon grammar. Let me try to come up with examples that 
illustrate my problem with your (and Krankor's) approach. Let's 
take an example Okrand gives us:

wIchenmoHlaH
wIchenbe'moHlaH
wIchenmoHbe'laH
wIchenmoHlaHbe'.

According to TKD's explanations:
We can make it.
We can cause it to not form.
We are able to not cause it to form.
We cannot make it.

According to your proposal:
We can make it.
We-be-formed-it-NOT can cause.(?)
We not make it - can. [This sort of works because it sort of 
means the same thing as "We are able to not make it."]
We can make it - NOT. [This works because it means the same 
thing as "We can't make it."]

I particularly see a problem with your proposal when {-moH} 
follows {-be'}, as in the second line above, since {-moH} 
changes the meaning of the verb prefix, which preceeds {-be'}. 
Similarly, {-lu'} is a problem for you to explain.

I do not believe that {-be'} is a marker separating all that 
which preceeds it from all that follows it. Okrand gives us 
nothing to interpret things this way. I believe that it is a 
pointer to that which IMMEDIATELY preceeds it (which he more 
explicitly stated about {-qu'}. I believe that there are two 
classes of "rovers". {-Ha'} and {-Qo'} don't quite belong in the 
sense that they don't rove, while {-be'} and {-qu'} do rove and 
immediately preceed the single affix or root they follow. I do 
not see the difference between {-qu'} and {-be'} that you are 
proposing.

Perhaps I'm just confused about your interpretation of things. 
Please, friend, tell me how you interpret these examples 
(especially the second line above where we see {-be'moH}) such 
that the negation applies to the entire concept preceeding 
{-be'}.

> -- ghunchu'wI' 

charghwI'

Back to archive top level